Fighting is NOT a necessary part of hockey...

[MoreOrr]

So...I got a bit carried away...I'll ask it again. If the staged fights (Neil vs. Orr) were removed but the spontaneous fights between "non-fighters" (Iginla, Tucker, Richards, etc.) increased....would that be better in your opinion?

Clearly yes, I agree. And as for the "spur of the moment" fights, I truly don't believe that they can be eliminated nor should there be a concerted effort to do so. Such an effort would necessarily diminish the intensity of the game. I just don't see an ejection from the game, as long as it doesn't involve fines or suspensions, as being a severe enough punishment to put a halt to fighting altogether, but ejecting fighters from the game truly shows the viewing public that fighting isn't condoned, even though it still does take place.

In fact, I said earlier in the thread that 3 ejections should mean a one game suspension and perhaps a fine, but forget the idea of the fine (it was stupid).

I would toss the "Instigator" rule as it currently exists and simply apply the penalty that I'm suggesting above only in situations where the combatants have actually engaged in a gloves off fight, nothing more. And the penalty would apply to both fighters. Any rough stuff, or "roughing" that might potentially lead up to a fight but in which a "gloves off" fight didn't actually occur would only be assessed a 2-minute minor, including in that any single punches that might have been thrown without taking off the gloves but then the players decided not to take it further. The whole point here is not taking a situation to the all out fighting stage.

 

[XploD]

Clearly yes, I agree. And as for the "spur of the moment" fights, I truly don't believe that they can be eliminated nor should there be a concerted effort to do so. Such an effort would necessarily diminish the intensity of the game. I just don't see an ejection from the game, as long as it doesn't involve fines or suspensions, as being a severe enough punishment to put a halt to fighting altogether, but ejecting fighters from the game truly shows the viewing public that fighting isn't condoned, even though it still does take place.

In fact, I said earlier in the thread that 3 ejections should mean a one game suspension and perhaps a fine, but forget the idea of the fine (it was stupid).

I would toss the "Instigator" rule as it currently exists and simply apply the penalty that I'm suggesting above only in situations where the combatants have actually engaged in a gloves off fight, nothing more. And the penalty would apply to both fighters. Any rough stuff, or "roughing" that might potentially lead up to a fight but in which a "gloves off" fight didn't actually occur would only be assessed a 2-minute minor, including in that any single punches that might have been thrown without taking off the gloves but then the players decided not to take it further. The whole point here is not taking a situation to the all out fighting stage.

Don't you see that what you're suggesting will have the exact opposite effect of what you want. If you penalize fighting with a game misconduct, the only players that will drop the gloves are the ones who aren't really needed on the roster for the rest of the game, the "goons". So the only thing we'll get out of this is more staged fights between goons and less fights stemming from the heat of the battle.

 

[Kocur Dill]

As long as there is hitting there'll be fighting. I'd rather two guys drop the gloves and square off than have shady stickwork and cheapshots behind the play.

To: The OP

If you have been watching for 40 years like you say then you will remember a guy named Emile "The Cat" Francis who has much, much respect in the hockey world.

Mr. Francis has gone on record, on video, answering this same questioning back in the 60's. His take on the situation was that the acceptance of fighting in the NHL durring the 50's/60's ( I do not remember what the rules were pre 60's) dramatically decreased stickwork and dirty play and in his opinion was that, yes, fighting was a nessesary evil of the sport. That within his time of playing, coaching, and GM'ing he saw with his own eyes that fighting and the lack of severe penalties for fighting was actually safer for the players given the nature of the sport.

If I can find a link I will edit later. It was a MSG "The Vault" video.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Don't you see that what you're suggesting will have the exact opposite effect of what you want. If you penalize fighting with a game misconduct, the only players that will drop the gloves are the ones who aren't really needed on the roster for the rest of the game, the "goons". So the only thing we'll get out of this is more staged fights between goons and less fights stemming from the heat of the battle.

It would result in no immediate retaliation in a quick spur of the moment fight....it would be a couple shifts later when you can get your resident cement head on the ice to go pummel the other player...regardless of how tough or not tough he is....then both will get tossed out.
You would have other expendable players trying to sucker more talented players into fights using a wide variety of tactics.

It really does get very far away from the purpose fighting serves. I'm all for punishing staged fights more than spur of the moment....but rules like MoreOrr suggested would make things much more dangerous for the average player and would probably result in some circus side show type acts, players agitating like they currently do and then turtling would also increase...no need for that.

 

[The Underboss]

This has been beaten to death. Not to mention the personal insults. We're done!